MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318263422 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000032765

Effects of electrical muscle stimulation on core muscle activation and physical performance in non-athletic adults: A randomized controlled trial

2023· article· en· W4318263422 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hyun-Joon Yoo, Sangsoo Park, Sejun Oh, Mun Jeong Kang, Yongha Seo, Byung Gon Kim, Sang‐Heon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCore stabilityPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAbdominal musclesElectrical muscle stimulationCore (optical fiber)Physical medicine and rehabilitationStimulationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) activates muscles through electrical currents, resulting in involuntary muscle contractions. This study aimed to evaluate the immediate clinical effects of superimposing EMS on strength training compared with conventional exercise in healthy non-athletic adults. METHODS: This study was a randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at a single centre. Forty-one healthy young volunteers were recruited and randomised into two groups: strengthening with superimposed EMS (S+E) and strengthening (S) groups. All participants underwent the 30 minutes of strength training program, three times a week for 8 weeks, consisting of core muscle exercises. Additionally, the S+E group received EMS during training, which stimulated the bilateral abdominal, gluteus, and hip adductor muscles. As the primary outcome measure, we evaluated the changes in muscle thickness, including the abdominal, gluteal, and hip adductor muscles, using ultrasound. Muscle thickness was measured in both resting and contracted states. For secondary outcomes, physical performance (Functional Movement System score, McGill's core stability test, and hip muscle power) and body composition analysis were evaluated. All assessments were performed at the beginning and end of the intervention. RESULTS: 39 participants (S+E group = 20, S group = 19) completed the study. The clinical characteristics and baseline functional status of each group did not differ significantly between the groups. After completion of the training, the S+E group showed more efficient contraction in most of the evaluated muscles. The resting muscle thickness did not differ significantly between the groups; however, the contracted muscle thickness in the S+E group was higher than that in the S group (p < 0.05). Physical performance and body composition were not significantly different between the two groups. No intervention-related complications were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: EMS seems to be a safe and reasonable modality for improving physical fitness in healthy individuals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207